Some numbers to consider in light of General Stanley McChrystal's request for as many as 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, and numbers to remember when you hear the voices in Washington who support the troop increase but argue that we can't afford health care reform:
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002: $20.8 billion.
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2009: $60.2 billion.
Total funds for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002-2009: $228.2 billion.
War-fighting funds requested by the Obama administration for 2010: $68 billion (a figure which will, for the first time since 2003, exceed funds requested for Iraq).
Estimated U.S. funds needed to support and upgrade Afghan forces for the next decade: $4 billion a year.
Estimated cost per troop of maintaining U.S. forces in Afghanistan when compared to Iraq: 30% higher.
Number of gallons of fuel per day used by the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan: 800,000.
Number of gallons of fuel used to keep Marine tents cool in the Afghan summer and warm in winter: 448,000 gallons.
Cost of a single gallon of gas delivered to the Afghan war zone on long, cumbersome, and dangerously embattled supply lines: Up to $100.
That's the treasure, here's the blood, keeping in mind that more troops equals more targets which equals more casualties:
Number of American troops killed in Afghanistan, 2001: 12
Number of American troops killed in Afghanistan, 2009 (through September 7th): 186
Percentage rise in Taliban attacks on coalition forces using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in 2009 (compared to the same period in 2008): 114%.
Rise in coalition deaths from IED attacks in July 2009 (compared to July 2008): six-fold.
Percentage increase in overall Taliban attacks in the first five months of 2009 (compared to the same period in 2008): 59%.
Estimates on the length of time to achieve "success," however that is defined:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on success in Afghanistan: It will take "a few years" to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report on the Afghan War: "None of the civilian officials or military officers interviewed in Afghanistan and elsewhere expected substantial progress in the short term. They talked in terms of years two, five and 10... Military officials believe the Afghanistan mission can only succeed if troops are there far longer -- anywhere from five years to 12 years."
Anthony H. Cordesman, a member of a "team" put together by U.S. commanding general in Afghanistan Stanley A. McChrystal to assess war strategy, and a national security expert for the Center for Strategic and International Studies: "told reporters recently that even with military gains in the next 12 to 18 months, it would take years to reduce sharply the threat from the Taliban and other insurgent forces."
New Chief of Staff of the British Army General Sir David Richards: "The Army's role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years."
"The conclusion is an obvious one. Even if things go well from here, the dream of a stable, democratic, tolerant and self-sustaining Afghanistan is not likely to be realised within a decade; probably not within three decades.
Certainly, if the West is going to continue to pursue the mission, it is going to require very considerable long-term financial support from the international community."
Put all of that together, and this is good news, in spite of calls by Republicans for President Obama to act quickly:
"Retired Gen. James L. Jones, who serves as national security advisor, said that the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan is in no imminent danger of failure, and that the president would consider a variety of broad, strategic directions to pursue before determining whether he would grant a top general's request for more troops.
Jones said Obama would decide on Afghanistan policy in "a matter of weeks" during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday morning.
"We have time on the president's schedule," Jones said. "He's going to devote an enormous amount of his time to lead us to this."
"I think the end is much more complicated than adding X number of troops," he said. "It would be unwise to rush to a final judgment here."
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002: $20.8 billion.
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2009: $60.2 billion.
Total funds for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002-2009: $228.2 billion.
War-fighting funds requested by the Obama administration for 2010: $68 billion (a figure which will, for the first time since 2003, exceed funds requested for Iraq).
Estimated U.S. funds needed to support and upgrade Afghan forces for the next decade: $4 billion a year.
Estimated cost per troop of maintaining U.S. forces in Afghanistan when compared to Iraq: 30% higher.
Number of gallons of fuel per day used by the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan: 800,000.
Number of gallons of fuel used to keep Marine tents cool in the Afghan summer and warm in winter: 448,000 gallons.
Cost of a single gallon of gas delivered to the Afghan war zone on long, cumbersome, and dangerously embattled supply lines: Up to $100.
That's the treasure, here's the blood, keeping in mind that more troops equals more targets which equals more casualties:
Number of American troops killed in Afghanistan, 2001: 12
Number of American troops killed in Afghanistan, 2009 (through September 7th): 186
Percentage rise in Taliban attacks on coalition forces using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in 2009 (compared to the same period in 2008): 114%.
Rise in coalition deaths from IED attacks in July 2009 (compared to July 2008): six-fold.
Percentage increase in overall Taliban attacks in the first five months of 2009 (compared to the same period in 2008): 59%.
Estimates on the length of time to achieve "success," however that is defined:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on success in Afghanistan: It will take "a few years" to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report on the Afghan War: "None of the civilian officials or military officers interviewed in Afghanistan and elsewhere expected substantial progress in the short term. They talked in terms of years two, five and 10... Military officials believe the Afghanistan mission can only succeed if troops are there far longer -- anywhere from five years to 12 years."
Anthony H. Cordesman, a member of a "team" put together by U.S. commanding general in Afghanistan Stanley A. McChrystal to assess war strategy, and a national security expert for the Center for Strategic and International Studies: "told reporters recently that even with military gains in the next 12 to 18 months, it would take years to reduce sharply the threat from the Taliban and other insurgent forces."
New Chief of Staff of the British Army General Sir David Richards: "The Army's role will evolve, but the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years."
"The conclusion is an obvious one. Even if things go well from here, the dream of a stable, democratic, tolerant and self-sustaining Afghanistan is not likely to be realised within a decade; probably not within three decades.
Certainly, if the West is going to continue to pursue the mission, it is going to require very considerable long-term financial support from the international community."
Put all of that together, and this is good news, in spite of calls by Republicans for President Obama to act quickly:
"Retired Gen. James L. Jones, who serves as national security advisor, said that the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan is in no imminent danger of failure, and that the president would consider a variety of broad, strategic directions to pursue before determining whether he would grant a top general's request for more troops.
Jones said Obama would decide on Afghanistan policy in "a matter of weeks" during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday morning.
"We have time on the president's schedule," Jones said. "He's going to devote an enormous amount of his time to lead us to this."
"I think the end is much more complicated than adding X number of troops," he said. "It would be unwise to rush to a final judgment here."
Whether we are ruled with the right hand or the left, nothing will ever change until WE change it. I am afraid you are right tragicmagic, this does all appear to just be more of the same. I will say one thing, I am pretty confident that Obama won't invade Iran. If for that alone I will take it.
Unfortunately perpetual war is a business in this country.
afghanistan has become the vietnam of this era, the continued loss of american lives and future deployment is unacceptable to me. and call me crazy but i mourn civilian death, injury and destruction. i'd think we'd have learned something about this by now, but obama seems to be possessed by the ghost of bush & cheney. is obama throwing this bone to the right in some deranged fashion to delude himself he can get some middle ground on healthcare? why are the loud voices who decried iraq standing silent on this obviously lost endeavor? i was angry when cindy sheehan came out against obama, as i felt he was winding it down and she was being unfair. but i owe her an apology! when we will discover america has no right to "christianize" the world and impose our "democracy" where it's neither appreciated or welcomed? i wish obama had watched the movie "W" with me so i could gauge his face to answer my questions. he's selling out our healthcare reform for nothing! i wouldn't be surprised if the left is forced to abandon him and start grooming a 2012 progressive candidate. my opinion, mccain had at least one thing correct, obama was not prepared to be commander in chief, too inexperienced, still campaigning. its embarrassing to say this, but his current status and inauguration roll-out are worlds apart. like watching a bad horror film, it has to play out. i had no choice but to vote for obama, at the time hope was better than more of the same. but more of the same is what i feel has happened. now i'm really depressed:(
Both Great Britian and Russia failed and were weakened after their attempts to take over Afghanistan. Hence, that is where all super powers go to die.
I am curious, did anyone happen to look at the 80 year occupation of Afghanistan by Britain? Did someone so much as crack a history book to get an idea of what they were going to be dealing with?
We didn't pay attention to what happened to the French nor the Russians in Afghanistan. We have developed an arrogance that says we can do whatever we want and it'll be all right.
Will we ever learn ?
After we trained and funded the terrorists did we honestly expect to waltz into Afghanistan and immediately win?
This is their home turf with harsh environments, mountainous terrain, fractured government, regional warlords, robust drug trade, unstable border with Pakistan. Didn't anyone realize that invading Iraq was going to hamper this endeavor? I know I did, and I said as much.
I contend that the situation in Afghanistan is right where the military and the government want it. Costly with no end in sight. Perfect for some here in the U.S.
They don't have a problem spending trillions on slaughtering people or giving it to banks, but a simple Public Option on Healthcare? You must be joking. When is everyone going to see how evil these people truly are?
"Didn't someone say that Afghanistan is where super powers go to die?"
Excellent point and why, I believe, we need to get the heck out of there. Now.
I don't think there is any chance of "winning" a war like this unless we start by giving people jobs and promoting a government that delivers some basic services. Otherwise there will always be an insurgency.
I think that has been amended to read "promote General Dynamics' welfare," and "provide for the common defense contractor."
I never have understood why war gets funded.
Education doesn't get funded.
There is a huge concern in the Congress over the funding of Health Care.
But war.....and the munitions to wage war...... no problem......
So... is the "promote the general welfare" provision in our Constitution.... any less important than the "provide for the common defense" provision?
I guess, if we allow it to be.... it is.
This one is on us. And, from what I have read, the polls, etc., say we don't have the stomach for another foreign war.... at the expense of our domestic programs.
Now..... if the politicians inside the Beltway....with their hands out to the Military-Industrial Complex Lobbyists ..... have that point driven home.... maybe we can escape this quagmire.... at less cost, in blood and treasure.... than Viet Nam.
We can only hope...
There were 8 more GI's killed over the weekend. The Russians found that Afghanistan was a money pit and got the hell out. Maybe its time for us to do the same.
I still wonder what the mission statement is for this incursion. Are we after the Taliban or are we chasing Bin Laden ? The Taliban is primarily an internal affair, its Afghans fighting Afghans for the most part. As far as Bin Laden, hell hes in Pakistan and that government (an ally ?) won't let us mount a serious mission to cross the border after him for internal political reasons. We had an endless conflict in Viet Nam, a senseless one in Iraq and I hesitate to try and define tis one in Afghanistan.
Well, we can keep throwing troops at Afghanistan for god knows how long with continued loss of life and outrageous financial costs or we could be wiser and try some diplomacy for a change. I don't see the rush here. Personally, I think it's perfectly legitimate for the president to take his time, consult the experts, weigh the options before committing the U.S. to another military mission. Didn't someone say that Afghanistan is where super powers go to die?